View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
iii
CONTENTS
NOTATION .............................................................................................................................. vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Need and Purpose for Study ..................................................................................... 3
1.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Intended Use and Users ............................................................................................ 5
1.5 Document Organization ........................................................................................... 5
2 TASKS AND METHODS .................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Literature and Data Review ..................................................................................... 7
2.2 Data Gathering, Processing, and Analysis ............................................................... 7
2.3 Data Limitations ....................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Stakeholder Input ..................................................................................................... 9
3 ANALYSIS AND MAPPING RESULTS ............................................................................ 11
3.1 Wind Energy Development Exclusion and Sensitivity Identification ..................... 11
3.2 Updated BLM Wind PEIS Wind Energy Development Exclusions and Siting
Considerations Map Products .................................................................................. 17
3.3 Acreages for Wind Energy Development Exclusions, HLSC, MLSC, and
Other BLM-Administered Lands ............................................................................. 17
4 WIND ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL MAPPER GEOSPATIAL DATA
VIEWER AND PROJECT WEBSITE ............................................................................. 33
5 FUTURE UPDATES .......................................................................................................... 35
6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT ENERGY GENERATION AND ELECTRIC
TRANSMISSION SUITABILITY STUDIES ................................................. A-1
APPENDIX B: GEOSPATIAL DATA LAYERS USED IN THE ANALYSIS
FOR THE WEST-WIDE WIND MAPPING PROJECT................................. B-1
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY DOCUMENT ........................................ C-1
iv
FIGURES
1 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in the 11 Western States ........................................................................................ 19
2 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Arizona .............................................................................................................. 20
3 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in California .......................................................................................................... 21
4 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Colorado ............................................................................................................ 22
5 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Idaho.................................................................................................................. 23
6 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Montana ............................................................................................................ 24
7 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Nevada .............................................................................................................. 25
8 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 26
9 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Oregon ............................................................................................................... 27
10 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Utah ................................................................................................................... 28
11 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Washington ....................................................................................................... 29
12 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 30
v
TABLES
1 Exclusions and Other Resource Sensitivities Related to Wind Energy
Development on BLM-Administered Lands ................................................................... 13
2 Summary of BLM-Administered Lands in Each State as Mapped with Respect to
Potentially Developable Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Expected Level of
Siting Considerations ....................................................................................................... 31
A-1 Studies, Projects, and Systems Reviewed as Part of the West-Wide Wind
Mapping Project ............................................................................................................... A-3
B-1 West-Wide Wind Mapping Project Geospatial Data Classes and Sources ...................... B-3
vi
NOTATION
The following is a list of the acronyms, abbreviations, and units of measure used in this
report. Some acronyms used only in tables may be defined only in those tables.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Argonne Argonne National Laboratory
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CDCA California Desert Conservation Area
CHAT Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (Western Governors’ Association)
DFA Development Focus Area
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DRECP Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
GHMA General Habitat Management Area
GIS geographic information system
HLSC high level of siting considerations
ID identification
MLSC moderate level of siting considerations
NGO non-governmental organization
NLCS National Landscape Conservation System
NPS National Park Service
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSBP National Scenic Byways Program
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area
Project West-Wide Wind Mapping Project
RETI Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (California)
RMBO Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory
RMP Resource Management Plan
vii
ROD Record of Decision
ROW right-of-way
SFA Sagebrush Focal Area
SRMA Special Recreation Management Area
TWS The Wilderness Society
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VRM Visual Resources Management
WGA Western Governors’ Association
Wind Mapper Wind Energy Environmental Mapper
UNITS OF MEASURE
km2 square kilometer(s)
m meter(s)
mi mile(s)
s second(s)
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is evaluating
the potential for wind energy development on public lands across 11 western states (Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming), including an assessment of potential resource sensitivities. The BLM Wind Energy
Program specifies which BLM-administered lands are potentially available for wind energy
development and which are excluded from wind energy development for various reasons.
BLM’s 2005 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy
Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States (Wind PEIS) and the
associated Record of Decision (ROD) identified BLM-administered lands in the same 11 western
states that would be excluded from wind development. Since 2005, numerous land use plan
revisions and amendments (most notably the land use planning effort for the greater sage grouse
and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan) have changed the boundaries of the
excluded lands. BLM policy has also changed with respect to certain exclusions. As a result,
maps of wind energy development exclusions prepared as part of the Wind PEIS are no longer
accurate.
Through subsequent state-level efforts, the BLM has identified additional BLM-
administered lands that may be suitable for wind energy development. However, because of
environmental and other sensitivities, proposed wind energy development projects on these lands
are anticipated to have more extensive siting considerations. These evaluations have not been
incorporated into any national-level maps, nor have they been assessed at the national level for
consistency in approach.
The West-Wide Wind Mapping Project (Project) identified and mapped BLM-
administered lands in the 11 western states that currently would be excluded from wind
development on the basis of decisions made in the Wind PEIS ROD, subsequent policy and land
use plan amendments, and potential policy changes. Wind energy development exclusions on
BLM-administered lands as mapped in this Project include lands in the National Landscape
Conservation System; lands inventoried and managed for wilderness characteristics; Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern; selected ecological, cultural, recreational, and visual resource
areas; and areas with potentially incompatible land uses, such as BLM-designated wind
exclusion areas. The Project was conducted by the BLM National Renewable Energy
Coordination Office with assistance from Argonne National Laboratory.
The Project further identified additional BLM-administered lands with potentially
developable wind resources1 where the presence of certain environmental resources or land use
restrictions may require more extensive consideration of proposed wind energy projects. These
lands are described and mapped as lands having a high level of siting considerations (HLSC) and
as lands having a moderate level of siting considerations (MLSC).
1 In this Project, lands with wind speeds greater than 5 m/s at a hub height of 80 m are considered to be potentially
developable.
2
HLSC lands are BLM-administered lands where the presence of certain environmental
resources or land use restrictions is likely to require greater consideration of potential impacts to
resources and existing uses when the BLM, other federal or state agencies, or stakeholders
conduct siting reviews. MLSC lands are BLM-administered lands where the presence of certain
environmental resources or land use restrictions is likely to require a moderate consideration of
potential impacts to resources and existing uses in siting reviews. Other BLM-administered lands
with potentially developable wind resources do not have known environmental resources or land
use restrictions that are likely to require more extensive consideration in siting reviews. The
degree of consideration of the potential impacts to resources and existing uses for lands
identified as HLSC/MLSC is related to the sensitivity of those lands’ associated resources and existing uses to wind energy development.
This Project shares information about potential issues that may be associated with
developing wind energy on BLM-administered lands. This information may be used to evaluate
future development opportunities and challenges; however, it should not be used to replace or
predict specific outcomes of project-specific reviews.
3
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 NEED AND PURPOSE FOR STUDY
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has an
active Wind Energy Development Program that specifies which BLM-administered lands are
potentially available for wind energy development and which are excluded from wind energy
development for various reasons, including environmental constraints. The Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in
the Western United States (Wind PEIS) identified BLM-administered lands in 11 western states
that would be excluded from wind development and evaluated associated land use plan
amendments (BLM 2005a). The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Wind PEIS amended 52 land
use plans in 9 western states to implement BLM’s wind energy development program
(BLM 2005b).
In the almost 11 years since the issuance of the Wind PEIS ROD in 2005, numerous land
use plan revisions and amendments have changed the boundaries of the excluded lands. BLM
policy has also changed with respect to certain exclusions. As a result, maps of wind energy
development exclusions prepared as part the Wind PEIS are no longer accurate.
Updated maps of wind energy development exclusions and environmental sensitivities
are needed to inform BLM land use planning activities. The West-Wide Wind Mapping Project
(Project) was undertaken to identify and map BLM-administered lands in the 11 western states
that would currently be excluded from wind development on the basis of decisions made in the
Wind PEIS and subsequent policy and land use plan amendments and potential policy changes,
and, further, to identify additional BLM-administered lands that might have more extensive
siting considerations resulting from the presence of sensitive resources or potentially
incompatible land uses. This Project shares information about potential issues that may be
associated with developing wind energy on BLM-administered lands. This information may be
used to evaluate future development opportunities and challenges; however, it should not be used
to replace or predict specific outcomes of project-specific reviews.
The Project was conducted by the BLM National Renewable Energy Coordination Office
with assistance from Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne).
1.2 BACKGROUND
The Wind PEIS ROD specified that the BLM would not issue right-of-way (ROW)
authorizations for wind energy development on lands on which wind energy development is
incompatible with specific resource values. Lands excluded from wind energy development
include designated areas that are part of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS)
(e.g., Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Monuments, National Conservation
Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails) and Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs). In addition to these blanket exclusions, certain areas were
4
excluded within individual field offices in order to protect specific resources or uses
(e.g., specific viewsheds, military training areas, and special management areas). The ROD also
stated that additional areas of land might be excluded from wind energy development on the
basis of findings of resource impacts that cannot be mitigated and/or conflicts with existing and
planned multiple-use activities or land use plans. Subsequent to issuance of the ROD, in 2008,
the BLM issued a Wind Energy Development Policy (Instruction Memorandum 2009-043)
(BLM 2008) that updated decisions issued in the ROD to ensure BLM-wide consistency in the
processing and management of wind energy ROWs. Among other things, this policy reversed the
blanket exclusion for ACECs.
Lands excluded from wind energy development in the ROD were identified in maps
issued as part of the Wind PEIS. Since 2005, state-specific land use plan revisions and
amendments (most notably the land use planning effort for the greater sage-grouse [BLM 2015a,
2015b] and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan [BLM 2015c, 2016]) have resulted
in new land use designations and adjustments to existing land use designations, thus changing
the boundaries of lands excluded from wind energy development as described in the Wind PEIS.
As a result, the maps of wind energy development exclusion areas prepared as part of the Wind
PEIS (found in Appendix B of the PEIS) are no longer accurate.
Through separate state-level efforts, the BLM has also identified additional lands that
may be suitable for wind energy development, given the presence of potentially developable
wind resources. However, because of environmental and other concerns, they should be
considered sensitive in terms of wind energy development. These evaluations have not been
incorporated into any national-level maps, nor have they been assessed at the national level for
consistency in approach.
The Project provides updated maps of wind energy development exclusion and
environmentally sensitive areas. The maps and associated geospatial datasets will be updated
periodically to maintain accuracy in the future (see Section 5 for a discussion of updates).
1.3 SCOPE
The geographic scope of the Project was limited to BLM-administered lands in the
following 11 western states:
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Montana
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• Oregon
• Utah
5
• Washington
• Wyoming
BLM-administered lands in Alaska and the eastern United States were not included in
the Project, nor were lands owned or administered by agencies or parties other than the BLM.
Because wind energy development is not feasible without sufficient wind energy resources, the
maps and associated geospatial data are further limited to BLM-administered lands with an
average annual wind speed of 5 m/s or greater at a hub height of 80 m.
1.4 INTENDED USE AND USERS
The Project maps, report, and selected geospatial data are publicly available through the
Project website at http://wwmp.anl.gov. In addition, the geospatial data are available for viewing
on the Wind Energy Environmental Mapper (Wind Mapper) website at
http://windmapper.anl.gov. The maps and data may be useful to BLM and other federal agency
staff, the wind energy industry, environmental organizations, Native American tribes, and other
stakeholders interested in wind energy development on BLM-administered public lands. The
information is anticipated to be useful for broad-scale wind energy development planning. It may
be useful for other purposes but is subject to important limitations that may affect its suitability
for various uses (see Section 2.3, Data Limitations).
1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
The remainder of this document is divided into four sections followed by three
appendices. Section 2 presents the main tasks undertaken for the Project and the analytical
methods used. Section 3 presents the study results, including current regional and state wind
energy exclusion and sensitivity maps and acreages estimates. Section 4 discusses the content
and capabilities of Wind Mapper, an online interactive geospatial data viewer for the Project, as
well as the Project website; and Section 5 discusses future updates to Project maps and data.
Appendix A lists the energy facility siting studies consulted in a literature review. Appendix B
lists all of the geospatial data sources used in the Project, and Appendix C is the Public Comment
Summary Document that summarizes the public comments on the project provided by
stakeholders.
6
This page intentionally left blank.
7
2 TASKS AND METHODS
2.1 LITERATURE AND DATA REVIEW
The West-Wide Wind Mapping Project included an initial literature review of 17 existing
studies conducted by federal agencies (including the BLM), state agencies, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), or multi-state collaborative groups (as of April 2014) that identified
potential renewable energy and electric transmission development constraints within a
geographic scope primarily confined to the 11 conterminous western states in which the BLM
administers a significant amount of land (see Appendix A). The studies were used to develop a
list of potentially sensitive environmental resources and conflicting land uses to consider in the
Project. A summary of the results of the literature review is presented in Section 3.1 of this
report.
2.2 DATA GATHERING, PROCESSING, AND ANALYSIS
The Project included the (1) identification of classes of excluded and potentially sensitive
resources, (2) acquisition of geospatial data representing those classes, and (3) compilation of the
acquired data into uniform layers of information covering the 11 western states. The BLM and a
number of other federal agencies and NGOs contributed geospatial data for the Project.
Data acquisition and processing tasks included the following:
1. Data acquisition and inventory. The BLM Washington Office acted as point
of contact to initiate data calls and upload the data collected from the 11 BLM
state offices to a cloud-based data storage system. The data were then
downloaded by Argonne and entered into the Project data inventory, where
each individual dataset was classified according to its sensitivity class and
given a source identification (ID) generated by the inventory system.
Questions from Argonne regarding proper classification of the data were
reconciled by the BLM Washington Office in coordination with the respective
state office(s).
2. Evaluation of data geometry and attributes. Data geometry and data type were
evaluated for quality and usability by Argonne geographic information system
(GIS) analysts. Point data or line data (which contain no area) were rejected
for use or were used to develop polygons based on setback distances
recommended by the BLM Washington Office. Attributes of the data were
also checked to ensure that all features were classified correctly.
3. Combining of data of the same sensitivity class into one layer. Based on data
type and attributes, Argonne GIS analysts used the appropriate GIS tools to
combine the individual datasets into single layers representing individual
sensitivity classes (e.g., Designated Critical Habitat for Endangered Species
8
Act [ESA]-Listed Species). Where possible, standard attributes were
maintained and source IDs from the Argonne inventory were carried through
as attributes of each feature in the final compiled layer.
4. Reconciling topological errors. The topology of each final compiled layer was
checked, and errors (where features which should be mutually exclusive
overlap) were fixed.
5. Writing metadata for compiled layers. Metadata were written for each
compiled layer with a focus on identifying the individual sources used in the
compilation.
6. Map production. Regional and individual state maps of wind energy
development exclusion and sensitive areas were developed in various formats,
including Adobe Acrobat PDF files.
7. Acreage calculation. Estimates of the amount of BLM-administered lands as
mapped with respect to potentially developable wind resources, exclusions,
and expected level of siting considerations were calculated by state using the
GIS.
In addition to excluded or sensitive resource areas, other important data layers used in the
Project included average annual wind speed and surface management agency. These layers were
used to define the geographic scope of the Project based on the suitability of the wind resource
and to limit the study to BLM-administered lands. The wind speed data were purchased from
AWS Truepower, LLC; wind speeds at 80 m above ground level were used in the analyses.
Additional geospatial data, such as hydrography and state and field office boundaries,
were used for reference purposes and were obtained from a variety of sources. Appendix B
provides a complete listing of data types used in the Project and the sources of these data.
2.3 DATA LIMITATIONS
Several important limitations and assumptions apply to the Project that must be carefully
considered when interpreting the classes of exclusions and potentially sensitive resources that
have been mapped:
• Incomplete coverage. The Project has attempted to assemble all geospatial
data pertaining to potentially sensitive resources across all 11 western states.
Certain classes of data may be incomplete in some areas. Data will be added
to complete Project coverage as it is received or created.
• Differences in data resolution. The Project is intended for use in broad-scale
wind energy development planning and is not suitable for siting individual
projects. Some of the data included have a resolution as low as 1 km2.
9
• Technical and other constraints. Wind energy project siting involves other
considerations beyond wind energy resources and compatible land uses. For
example, proximity to suitable electric transmission is an important wind
energy siting criterion. Generally, available transmission is limited, and while
several transmission projects that might provide suitable transmission capacity
for new wind projects are planned, whether or not they will actually be
constructed is unknown. A predictive analysis for electric transmission is
beyond the scope of the Project. Other considerations not examined in the
Project include, but are not limited to, access to suitable roads and slope.
Similarly, there are economic factors that dictate wind energy project planning
and siting strategies, and these factors are also not included.
• Lack of cultural and tribal data. Inherently, some cultural resources data and
data regarding tribal concerns for specific locations are either unavailable in
geospatial format, are sensitive and cannot be publicly released, or both.
Currently, the displayable cultural resources data include properties listed on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (publicly available locations
only); National Historic Landmarks; National Historic Parks, National
Historic Sites, National Historic Trails; and ACECs, some of which may have
been designated for cultural values.
• Project-specific factors. When a specific project is proposed for a specific
location on public lands, it triggers surveys and impact assessments that may
uncover previously unidentified resources that lead to more extensive siting
reviews (e.g., a cultural or ecological resources survey) and, in some cases,
exclusion of the project location from development. In the case of ecological
resources, many areas on BLM-administered lands have not been surveyed for
these resources or have not been surveyed recently or to current standards.
Because the Project is not examining issues of siting individual wind projects,
it is not possible to account for significant resources that may be present on
these lands.
2.4 STAKEHOLDER INPUT
On September 16, 2014, the BLM hosted a stakeholder outreach meeting to present
information on the West-Wide Wind Mapping Project and to solicit feedback. The information
presented in this meeting was made available to the general public for comment and review.
Many stakeholders provided valuable comments during the meeting; written comments were
received from seven stakeholder groups:
• American Wind Energy Association;
• Clark County, Nevada, Department of Aviation;
• Southern Nevada Water Authority;
• South-West Department of Defense Regional Coordination Team;
10
• The Nature Conservancy;
• The Wilderness Society on behalf of itself and 15 other NGOs; and
• World Wildlife Fund.
Most commenters supported the idea of renewable energy development on public land
and made additional comments and recommendations on the Project that fell into eight main
topics: (1) comments on the Project purpose and objective, (2) comments on potential
exclusions, (3) consideration of additional resource sensitivities and/or exclusion categories,
(4) mapping suggestions, (5) use of appropriate data sources, (6) siting, (7) public involvement,
and (8) Project implementation and maintenance. A summary of these comments is provided in
Appendix C. A number of changes to the project methods and data sources were made in
response to the comments received; however, no written responses to comments have been
provided.
11
3 ANALYSIS AND MAPPING RESULTS
3.1 WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSION AND SENSITIVITY
IDENTIFICATION
As noted in Section 2.1, the West-Wide Wind Mapping Project included an initial
literature review of existing studies as of April 2014 that identified potential development
sensitivities for utility-scale renewable energy development and/or electric transmission. The
17 reviewed studies identified approximately 250 different types of potential sensitivities for
wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric energy development, as well as electric
transmission. A list of the studies included in the literature review is to be found in Appendix A.
Many of the sensitivities identified in these studies were not relevant or useable for the
Project for various reasons, including being overly vague or lacking any spatial reference;
applying only to non-BLM-administered lands; there being physical constraints
(e.g., topography, soil stability, slope restrictions, and therefore being applicable primarily at a
site- and project-specific scale); or there being land use-related restrictions that also would be
applicable primarily at a site- and project-specific scale (e.g., no development on roads or at
airports). The remaining sensitivities related primarily to special area designations,
environmental concerns, or land use incompatibility that were determined to be potentially
applicable to BLM-administered lands. Of the sensitivities that were potentially applicable, many
were based on environmental concerns about ecological resources that are focused on a variety
of animal habitats. Sensitivities were also identified concerning visual, recreation, historical,
cultural, and paleontological resources. No definitive assessment of applicability to BLM-
administered lands could be made for a small number of constraints identified in the existing
studies.
From this list of constraints, along with the exclusions and sensitivities previously
identified, the BLM selected an initial list of exclusions and sensitivities to be included in the
Project. The list was eventually modified based on comments received from stakeholders (see
Section 2.4 and Appendix C) and further BLM internal review.
Wind energy development exclusions and sensitivities analyzed and mapped in the
Project include special land resource areas (e.g., NLCS lands, ACECs), ecological resources,
cultural resources, visual resources, recreation resources, and potentially incompatible land uses,
based on BLM policy or decisions made in individual Resource Management Plans (RMPs).
There was some overlap among these categories because RMP decisions are often made based in
part on environmental concerns; however, for Project analysis, it was useful to classify the
exclusions and sensitivities into these major types.
Wind energy development exclusions as mapped in this Project include lands in the
NLCS; lands inventoried and managed for wilderness characteristics; ACECs; Desert Renewable
Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) California Desert National Conservation Lands; selected
ecological, cultural, and visual resource areas; and areas with potentially incompatible land uses,
such as BLM-designated wind exclusion areas.
12
Table 1 lists wind energy development exclusions and sensitivities that the BLM
identified for inclusion in the Project. Exclusions were identified on the basis of decisions made
in the Wind PEIS and subsequent policy and land use plan amendments and potential policy
changes. Sensitivities included BLM-administered lands with potentially developable wind
resources where the presence of certain environmental resources or land use restrictions may
result in more extensive siting considerations for proposed wind energy projects. These lands are
described and mapped as lands having a high level of siting considerations (HLSC) and lands
having a moderate level of siting considerations (MLSC). HLSC lands are BLM-administered
lands where the presence of certain environmental resources or land use restrictions is likely to
require greater consideration of potential impacts to resources and existing uses when the BLM,
other federal or state agencies, or stakeholders conduct siting reviews. MLSC lands are BLM-
administered lands where the presence of certain environmental resources or land use restrictions
is likely to require a moderate consideration of potential impacts to resources and existing uses in
siting reviews. The degree of consideration of the potential impacts to resources and existing
uses for lands identified as HLSC/MLSC is related to the sensitivity of those lands’ associated
resources and existing uses to wind energy development. Other BLM-administered lands with
potentially developable wind resources do not have known environmental resources or land use
restrictions that are likely to require more extensive consideration in siting reviews. Table 1 also
indicates whether each excluded/sensitive area is designated by the BLM and identifies the
source of the geospatial data for each resource area type.
The exclusions and sensitivities identified in Table 1 were included in the data call to the
BLM state offices as discussed in Section 2.2, and the data received from the state offices were
then combined with average annual wind speed data and BLM land management data to develop
the exclusion and sensitivity maps that constitute the main products of the West-Wide Wind
Mapping Project. It is possible that other sensitive resources and designations, not included in the
Project at this time, may be identified during a project-specific review that could trigger
additional siting review. Not all resources identified in Table 1 have been included as data layers
in the Wind Mapper data viewer tool or integrated into Project maps; it is expected that these
resources will be integrated in the future as data become available.
13
TABLE 1 Exclusions and Other Resource Sensitivities Related to Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Landsa
Exclusions and Sensitivities
BLM
Designationb Exclusion
Other Sensitive
Resourcec Data Sourced
Special Land Resource Areas
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern √ X BLM
DRECP California Desert National Conservation Lands √ X BLM
Lands inventoried and managed for wilderness characteristics √ X BLM
National Conservation Areas (except CDCA) √ X BLM
National Monuments √ X BLM
National Natural Landmarks on BLM-administered lands X NPS
Other designated NLCS landse √ X BLM
Wild and Scenic Rivers √ X BLM
Wilderness Areas √ X BLM
Wilderness Study Areas √ X BLM
Ecological Resources
Desert tortoise
Designated critical habitat High BLM
USFWS-identified priority tortoise connectivity areas Moderate USFWS
Desert Wildlife Management Areas √ Moderate BLM
Designated critical habitat for ESA-listed species High USFWS
Designated special status species management areas √ Moderate BLM
DRECP Wildlife Allocations √ X BLM
Important Bird Areas Moderate National Audubon
Society
Raptor habitat/distribution
Bald eagle, Golden eagle, and Aplomado falcon potentially
suitable habitat distributionf Moderate USGS
California condor, Mexican spotted owl, and Northern spotted
owl designated critical habitat High USFWS
14
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
Exclusions and Sensitivities
BLM
Designationb Exclusion
Other Sensitive
Resourcec Data Sourced
Ecological Resources (cont.)
Sage-grouse (includes greater and Gunnison)
GHMA, except in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming √ High BLM
GHMA in Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming √ Moderate BLM
PHMA, except in Wyoming and Lake, Malheur, and Harney
Counties in Oregon √ X BLM
PHMA in Wyoming and Lake, Malheur, and Harney Counties in
Oregon √ High BLM
SFA, except in Wyoming √ X BLM
SFA in Wyoming √ High BLM
Sharp-tailed grouse habitat Moderate BLM
Wildlife Management Areas, except in California √ Moderate BLM
WGA CHAT crucial habitat Moderate WGA
Potentially Incompatible Land Uses
Designated BLM utility corridors √ High BLM
DoD-designated areas of high risk of adverse impact High DoD
DoD restricted airspace and military training routes Moderate BLM NOC
DRECP DFAs restricted to solar and/or geothermal energy √ X BLM
DRECP Variance Lands √ Moderate BLM
Lands acquired with federal funds for conservation purposes √ X BLM
Lands purchased by private funds and donated to the BLM √ Moderate BLM
No surface occupancy restriction areas √ High BLM
NPS-identified high potential conflict areas Moderate NPS
15
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
Exclusions and Sensitivities
BLM
Designationb Exclusion
Other Sensitive
Resourcec Data Sourced
Potentially Incompatible Land Uses (cont.)
RMP Wind Avoidance Areas √ High BLM
RMP Wind Exclusion Areas √ X BLM
ROW Avoidance Areas √ High BLM
ROW Exclusion Areas √ X BLM
Utah Test and Training Range High BLM
Visual Resources
BLM Back-Country Byways √ Moderate BLM
DRECP National Scenic Cooperative Management Areas √ X BLM
National Scenic Highways/All-American Roads Moderate NSBP
National Scenic Trails X NPS
State Scenic Highways Moderate NSBP
VRM Class I √ X BLM
VRM Class II √ High BLM
VRM Class III √ Moderate BLM
Cultural Resources
Areas of Tribal Concern Moderate BLM
National Historic Landmarks X NPS
National Historic Parks and National Historic Sites X NPS
National Historic Trails X NPS
Properties listed on the NRHP or comparable state register X NPS, state agencies
Sites identified by the BLM as eligible for listing on the NRHP √ Moderate BLM
State Historic Trails High State agencies
16
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
Exclusions and Sensitivities
BLM bDesignation Exclusion
Other Sensitive cResource dData Source
Recreational Resources
Long-term visitor use areas √ Moderate BLM
Off-highway vehicle areas
DRECP Open Off Highway Vehicle Areas √ X BLM
Off-highway vehicle open areas, except in DRECP √ Moderate BLM
Recreation management areas
DRECP Extensive Recreation Management Areas √ High BLM
DRECP SRMAs √ X BLM
SRMAs, except in California √ Moderate BLM
SRMAs in California, not in the DRECP √ X BLM
a Abbreviations: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CDCA = California Desert Conservation Area; CHAT = Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool;
DoD = U.S. Department of Defense; DRECP = Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; DFA = Development Focus Area; ESA =
Endangered Species Act; GHMA = General Habitat Management Area; NLCS = National Landscape Conservation System; NOC = National
Operations Center; NPS = National Park Service; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; NSBP = National Scenic Byways Program;
PHMA = Priority Habitat Management Area; RMP = Resource Management Plan; ROW = right-of-way; SFA = Sagebrush Focal Area; SRMA =
Special Recreation Management Area; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; VRM = Visual Resource
Management; WGA = Western Governors’ Association.
b Land use designation or characterization established by the BLM.
c Other sensitive resources are characterized by whether they are expected to have a “high” level of siting considerations (HLSC) versus a
“moderate” level of siting considerations (MLSC). Other resources and designations (e.g., National Recreational Trails, Watchable Wildlife
Viewing Sites, Wild Horse and Burro Ranges) may trigger additional siting reviews. Although they are not included in this table, they may be
identified during project-specific reviews.
d All BLM data will be obtained from BLM state and/or field offices, unless otherwise indicated.
e Other designated NLCS lands include Cooperative Management and Protection Areas, National Forest Reserves, and Outstanding Natural Areas.
f Potentially suitable habitat distribution is determined on the basis of distribution models that represent areas where species are predicted to occur
based on habitat associations. These distribution models are developed as part of the USGS Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project.
17
3.2 UPDATED BLM WIND PEIS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIONS
AND SITING CONSIDERATIONS MAP PRODUCTS
Mapping products for the West-Wide Wind Mapping Project include individual state
maps and an 11-state map of both wind energy development exclusions and sensitivities for
BLM-administered lands with average annual wind speeds of 5 m/s or greater. Small-scale
versions of these maps are shown in Figures 1 through 12. Important limitations of the data,
copyright information, and other map notes are provided in the text box on the next page. The
maps show excluded HLSC, MLSC, and other potentially developable lands in four different
hues, shaded by the average annual wind speed, with darker shades of each color representing
lands with higher average annual wind speeds. The maps also show BLM-administered lands
without developable wind resources (those lands with annual average wind speeds of less than
5 m/s) in gray. More detailed, poster-size maps are available through the Project website at
http://wwmp.anl.gov.
The geospatial data for the exclusion and sensitive areas are also available for interactive
viewing through the Wind Mapper geospatial data viewer and for downloading through the
Project website.
3.3 ACREAGES FOR WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIONS, HLSC,
MLSC, AND OTHER BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS
Figures 1 through 12 show the locations of BLM-administered lands, lands where wind
energy development would be excluded, HLSC and MLSC lands, and other potentially
developable lands. Table 2 gives the acreages for each of these categories.
18
MAP NOTES
Data Limitations These maps were constructed using the best available geospatial data but may contain errors. Geospatial data are not complete across the mapped area for some resources. Acreage estimates are based on BLM state office boundaries, which in some cases differ slightly from state boundaries. Mapping is intended for use in large-scale wind energy planning and is not suitable for individual project siting or review. Topography, roadway accessibility, economic factors, and other resources were not considered in this mapping effort. Appendix B of this report identifies the geospatial data layers used in this effort.
Copyright Information Wind speed data source: Platts. Copyright© 2014 by McGraw Financial.
Wind Speed Data Wind speed shown on BLM-administered land is for a hub height of 80 m using data provided by AWS Truepower, LLC (www.awstruepower.com).
Excluded Lands Excluded lands include those lands that are excluded from wind development on the basis of existing land use plan decisions and potential policy changes. Wind projects proposed on BLM-administered lands that are not excluded will have varying levels of siting considerations due to the presence of certain environmental resources or land use restrictions. HLSC lands are BLM-administered lands where the presence of certain environmental resources or land use restrictions is likely to require greater consideration of potential impacts to resources and existing uses when the BLM, other federal or state agencies, or stakeholders conduct siting reviews. MLSC lands are BLM-administered lands where the presence of certain environmental resources or land use restrictions is likely to require a moderate consideration of potential impacts to resources and existing uses in siting reviews. Other BLM-administered lands with potentially developable wind resources do not have known environmental resources or land use restrictions that are likely to require more extensive consideration in siting reviews.
BLM-Administered Lands without Potentially Developable Wind Resources Lands with wind speeds below 5 m/s are not considered to be developable. BLM-administered lands with speeds below 5 m/s have not been mapped with respect to exclusions or expected level of siting considerations.
19
FIGURE 1 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in the 11 Western States
20
FIGURE 2 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-
Administered Lands in Arizona
21
FIGURE 3 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in California
22
FIGURE 4 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered Lands in Colorado
23
FIGURE 5 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered Lands
in Idaho
24
FIGURE 6 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered Lands in Montana
25
FIGURE 7 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in Nevada
26
FIGURE 8 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered
Lands in New Mexico
27
FIGURE 9 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered Lands in Oregon
28
FIGURE 10 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-
Administered Lands in Utah
29
FIGURE 11 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered Lands in Washington
30
FIGURE 12 Wind Resources, Exclusions, and Resource Sensitivities on BLM-Administered Lands in Wyoming
31
TABLE 2 Summary of BLM-Administered Lands in Each State as Mapped with Respect to Potentially Developable Wind Resources,
Exclusions, and Expected Level of Siting Considerationsa,b
Total Lands with
Lands with Potentially Developable Wind Resources (acres)d,e,f
Existing or Lands Having Lands Having Other Lands Lands with
Total BLM- Potential High Level of Moderate Level of with Average Average Annual
Administered Exclusions Siting Siting Annual Wind Wind Speed
State Lands (acres) (acres)c Total Considerations Considerations Speed > 5 m/s < 5 m/s
Arizona 12,026,719 2,921,389 5,971,987 2,629,320 3,304,215 38,451 3,133,343
California 14,958,398 9,677,937 1,993,198 1,004,645 944,053 44,501 3,287,263
Colorado 8,284,340 1,822,224 3,338,334 1,230,759 1,900,657 206,918 3,123,782
Idaho 11,671,130 5,171,228 4,699,736 1,072,370 3,625,480 1,886 1,800,166
Montana 6,222,368 3,150,204 2,739,451 1,917,477 734,068 87,906 332,714
Nevada 47,268,438 19,158,085 16,854,005 9,997,791 6,788,674 67,540 11,256,348
New Mexico 12,793,991 5,911,170 6,735,608 67,037 5,620,599 1,047,972 147,213
Oregon 15,695,673 4,454,884 7,642,356 5,888,380 1,723,840 30,137 3,598,428
Utah 22,626,085 8,689,488 8,100,658 4,565,312 3,533,106 2,241 5,835,938
Washington 424,970 17,628 262,926 359 260,980 1,587 144,416
Wyoming 17,309,485 1,520,739 14,589,323 7,705,414 6,880,196 3,713 1,199,423
Total 169,281,596 62,494,976 72,927,582 36,078,863 35,315,868 1,532,852 33,859,034
a To convert acres to km2, multiply by 0.004047. b The acreage estimates were calculated on the basis of the best available GIS data. GIS data are not complete across the mapped area for some resources.
Acreage estimates are based on BLM state office boundaries, which may differ slightly from state boundaries. c Excluded lands include those that are excluded from wind development on the basis of existing land use plan decisions and potential policy changes. d Potentially developable wind resources include average annual wind speeds of 5 m/sec or greater, measured at hub heights of 80 m as mapped by AWS
Truepower, LLC. e Wind projects proposed on BLM-administered lands that are not excluded will have varying levels of siting considerations owing to the presence of certain
environmental resources or land use restrictions. Lands having a high level of siting considerations are lands where the presence of certain environmental
resources or land use restrictions is likely to require greater consideration of potential impacts to resources and existing uses when the BLM, other federal
or state agencies, or stakeholders conduct siting reviews. Lands having a moderate level of siting considerations are likely to require a moderate
consideration of potential impacts in siting reviews. Other BLM-administered lands with potentially developable wind resources do not have known
environmental resources or land use restrictions that are likely to require more extensive consideration in siting reviews. f BLM‐administered lands with average annual wind speeds of less than 5 m/sec are considered not to have potentially developable wind resources. These
lands have not been mapped for excluded areas or high or moderate levels of siting considerations.
32
This page intentionally left blank.
33
4 WIND ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL MAPPER
GEOSPATIAL DATA VIEWER AND PROJECT WEBSITE
Wind Mapper is an interactive Web-based mapping tool that displays wind energy
resources and relevant environmental data for the western United States. Users can view map
layers that were used to create the map products for the West-Wide Wind Mapping Project. The
tool provides the ability to zoom and pan to areas of interest, query the data, and print maps.
Wind Mapper also allows users to draw an area of interest on screen, and then generate reports
that specify the types and acreages of environmental resources within the area identified as wind
energy development exclusion areas, HLSC lands, or MLSC lands.
Wind Mapper provides users with fast, easy access to a wide variety of spatial data
through a Web browser, requiring only limited and generally quick data and software downloads.
Wind Mapper data layers will be updated over time, thus providing the best access to updated,
comprehensive data in an easy-to-use format.
Wind Mapper requires an active Internet connection while in use. It is compatible with
leading, current Web browsers. Wind Mapper is available at http://windmapper.anl.gov.
Geospatial data used for the Project are available for download through the Project website at
http://wwmp.anl.gov. Files are available in Esri File Geodatabase format and in Esri Shapefile
format for use with GIS software. The project website also provides a summary of the Project
and links to Project exclusion and sensitivity maps and this Project report, as well as news and
updates about the Project.
34
This page intentionally left blank.
35
5 FUTURE UPDATES
As noted in the Introduction to this report, land use plan revisions and amendments,
changes in BLM policy, and state-level efforts may result in changes in the locations and
amounts of BLM-administered lands that may be suitable for wind energy development. In
addition, data for exclusions and sensitivities not currently available for inclusion in the West-
Wide Wind Mapping Project may become available in the future. As a result, the BLM intends to
periodically update the Project maps and geospatial data, as well as the Wind Mapper data layers,
in order to provide the best and most current data available. Information about these updates will
be posted on the Project website at http://wwmp.anl.gov, and users who have signed up for
Project e-mails through the website will be notified via e-mail.
36
This page intentionally left blank.
37
6 REFERENCES
BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2005a, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United
States, Including Proposed Amendments to Selected Land Use Plans, U.S. Department of the
Interior, FES-05-11, Final, June. Available at http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/Index.cfm,
accessed October 25, 2016.
BLM, 2005b, Record of Decision: Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and
Associated Land Use Plan Amendments, U.S. Department of the Interior, December. Available at
http://windeis.anl.gov/documents/docs/windpeisrod.pdf, accessed October 25, 2016.
BLM, 2008, Instruction Memorandum 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19.
BLM, 2015a, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for
the Great Basin Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Idaho and
Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, Utah, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., September.
BLM, 2015b, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for
the Rocky Mountain Region, Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Lewistown,
North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, Wyoming, and the Approved Resource Management Plans
for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument, South
Dakota, Worland, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
D.C., September.
BLM, 2015c, Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan
Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of the Interior,
BLM/CA/PL-2016/03+1793+8321, October.
BLM, 2016, Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Record of Decision for the Land Use
Plan Amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan, Bishop Resource
Management Plan, and Bakersfield Resource Management Plan, U.S. Department of the
Interior, BLM/CA/PL-2016/03+1793+8321, September.
38
This page intentionally left blank.
A-1
APPENDIX A:
RELEVANT ENERGY GENERATION AND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
SUITABILITY STUDIES
A-2
This page intentionally left blank.
A-3
APPENDIX A:
RELEVANT ENERGY GENERATION AND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
SUITABILITY STUDIES
Table A-1 lists the studies, projects, and systems as of 2014 that were reviewed as part of the
West-Wide Wind Mapping Project (Project). As discussed in Section 3.1, environmental
resources and conflicting land uses included in these efforts were considered for evaluation in the
Project.
TABLE A-1 Studies, Projects, and Systems Reviewed as Part of the West-Wide Wind Mapping
Project (alphabetical by organization)
Study/Project/
System Name Organization
Development
Type
Data Layers
Included/Resources
Considered
Constraint Types
Identified
Geographic
Scope
Arizona
Renewable
Resource and
Transmission
Identification
Subcommittee
Arizona
Renewable
Resource and
Transmission
Identification
Subcommittee
Solar, wind Specially designated
lands, visual
resources, wildlife
resources, water
resources,
historical/cultural
resources, slope,
military areas, other
• Exclusion
• High
sensitivity
• Moderate
sensitivity
• Low
sensitivity
Statewide
Wind Power in
Wyoming: Doing
it Smart from the
Start
Biodiversity
Conservation
Alliance
Wind Specially designated
lands, visual
resources, wildlife
resources, other
• Exclusion
areas
• Caution areas
• Promotion
areas
Statewide
Arizona
Restoration
Design Energy
Project
BLM Arizona Solar, wind Specially designated
lands, visual
resources, wildlife
resources, water
resources,
historical/cultural
resources, slope,
military areas, other
• Known
sensitive
resources
eliminated
from
consideration
• Water
Protection
Zones
Statewide
A-4
TABLE A-1 (Cont.)
Study/Project/
System Name Organization
Development
Type
Data Layers
Included/Resources
Considered
Constraint Types
Identified
Geographic
Scope
BLM Southern
Idaho
Infrastructure
Development
Conflict Map
BLM Idaho Power
transmission
lines;
communication
facilities/towers;
airports; paved
roads; railroads;
energy
development
such as wind,
geothermal, coal,
nuclear, solar
Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources,
historical/cultural
resources, military
areas, other
• Development
precluded
• High conflict
• Moderate
conflict
• Low conflict
Southern
Idaho
Renewable
Energy
Development
Challenges and
Opportunities
BLM Oregon Wind Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources,
military areas
• BLM Special
Emphasis Area
• Conservation
Opportunity
Area
• BLM
Preliminary
Primary
Habitat
• BLM
Preliminary
General Habitat
• DoD
Consultation
Area
Statewide
Colorado
Renewable
Energy
Development
Infrastructure
Colorado
Governor’s
Energy Office
Solar, wind Specially
designated lands,
wildlife resources,
water resources,
military areas,
other
• Sensitive
resources
conservation
(with five
classifications
that vary from
low to high)
• Environmental
considerations
Statewide
High Plains
Express
Routing/Permittin
g Study
Committee
Update
High Plains
Express
Routing/
Permitting
Study
Committee
Extra-high
voltage
transmission line
facilities
Specially
designated lands,
wildlife resources,
historical/cultural
resources, slopes,
military areas,
other
• Exclusion areas
• Sensitivity
areas
• Opportunity
areas
Arizona,
Colorado,
New
Mexico,
Wyoming
A-5
TABLE A-1 (Cont.)
Study/Project/
System Name Organization
Development
Type
Data Layers
Included/Resources
Considered
Constraint Types
Identified
Geographic
Scope
Nevada
Renewable
Energy
Transmission
Access Advisory
Committee
Nevada
Renewable
Energy
Transmission
Access
Advisory
Committee
Solar, wind,
biomass,
geothermal
Specially
designated lands,
wildlife resources,
slope, military
areas, other
• Level 1 (fatal
flaw, highest
constraint)
• Level 2 (high
constraint)
• Level 3
(moderate
constraint)
• Level 4 (low
constraint)
• Level 5
(unresolved)
Statewide
California
Renewable
Energy
Transmission
Initiative (RETI)
RETI
Stakeholder
Steering
Committee
Solar, wind,
biomass,
geothermal,
biogas, hydro,
and wave and
marine currents
Specially
designated lands,
wildlife resources,
water resources,
historical/cultural
resources, slope,
and other
• Category 1
lands
(exclusion
zones)
• Category 2
lands
California,
Arizona,
Nevada,
Oregon,
Washington,
British
Columbia,
and the
northern part
of Baja
California
USFWS Land-
Based Wind
Energy
Guidelines
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Service
(USFWS)
Wind Specially
designated lands,
wildlife resources
• Precluded areas
• Protected areas
• Inappropriate
areas
• Avoidance
areas
United
States
Utah Renewable
Energy Zone
Utah
Renewable
Energy Zones
Task Force
Solar, wind,
geothermal
Military areas,
other
Exclusion areas Statewide
A-6
TABLE A-1 (Cont.)
Study/Project/
System Name Organization
Development
Type
Data Layers
Included/Resources
Considered
Constraint Types
Identified
Geographic
Scope
Western
Governors’
Association
Western
Renewable
Energy Zone
Western
Governors’
Association
Solar, wind,
biomass, hydro,
geothermal
Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources,
water resources,
slope, military
areas, other
• Exclusion areas
• Avoidance
areas
• Wildlife
avoidance areas
Arizona,
California,
Colorado,
Idaho,
Montana,
New Mexico,
Nevada,
Oregon,
Utah,
Washington,
Wyoming;
Alberta and
British
Columbia
Wyoming Wind
Collector System
and Integration
Study
Wyoming
Business
Council,
Business and
Industry
Division, State
Energy Office,
and Wyoming
Infrastructure
Authority
Wind Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources,
water resources,
historical/cultural
resources, military
areas, other
• Very high
constraint
• High constraint
• Moderate
constraint
• Low constraint
Southeast
Wyoming
Wind
Development
Environmental
Conflicts Map,
December 2008
Wyoming
Infrastructure
Authority
Wind Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources
• Likely
precluded
• Significant
environmental
conflicts
• No significant
environmental
conflicts
identified
Statewide
Wind
Development
Environmental
Conflicts Map,
October 2010
Wyoming
Governor’s
Office
Wind Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources
• Excluded
• High sensitivity
• Sensitive
• Minimal
environmental
conflicts
Statewide
A-7
TABLE A-1 (Cont.)
Study/Project/
System Name Organization
Development
Type
Data Layers
Included/Resources
Considered
Constraint Types
Identified
Geographic
Scope
Wind Energy:
Doing it Right in
Wyoming
Wyoming
Outdoor
Council
Wind Specially
designated lands,
visual resources,
wildlife resources,
other
• Exclusion areas
• Avoidance
areas
Statewide
A-8
This page intentionally left blank.
B-1
APPENDIX B:
GEOSPATIAL DATA LAYERS USED IN THE ANALYSIS
FOR THE WEST-WIDE WIND MAPPING PROJECT
B-2
This page intentionally left blank.
B-3
APPENDIX B:
GEOSPATIAL DATA LAYERS USED IN THE ANALYSIS FOR THE WEST-WIDE WIND MAPPING PROJECT
Table B-1 lists the geospatial data sources used in the West-Wide Wind Mapping Project.
TABLE B-1 West-Wide Wind Mapping Project Geospatial Data Classes and Sourcesa
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Special Land Resource Areas
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM California State Office 2014
BLM Colorado State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office 2012
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
Various sources compiled at Argonne National Laboratory 2014
DRECP California Desert National Conservation Lands BLM California State Office 2016
Lands inventoried and managed for wilderness characteristics BLM Arizona State Office 2014
National Conservation Areas (except CDCA) BLM California State Office 2000
National Monuments BLM California State Office 2012, 2014
BLM Colorado State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
BLM Washington Office 2009
Various sources compiled at Argonne National Laboratory 2014
National Natural Landmarks on BLM-administered lands NPS 2013
Other designated NLCS lands BLM California State Office 2007
BLM Washington Office 2009
B-4
TABLE B-1 (Cont.)
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Special Land Resource Areas (cont.)
Wild and Scenic Rivers BLM California State Office 2014
BLM Colorado State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office Unknown
Wilderness Areas BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM California State Office 2014
BLM Colorado State Office 2013
BLM Idaho State Office 2013
BLM Montana State Office Unknown
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
BLM Washington Office 2009
Various sources compiled at Argonne National Laboratory 2014
Wilderness.net 2014
Wilderness Study Areas BLM 2014
BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM California State Office 2014
BLM Colorado State Office 2013
BLM Idaho State Office 2011
BLM Montana State Office 2014
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
BLM Washington Office 1982–2009
Various sources compiled at Argonne National Laboratory 2014
B-5
TABLE B-1 (Cont.)
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Ecological Resources
Desert tortoise
Designated critical habitat BLM Arizona State Office 2011
USFWS-identified priority tortoise connectivity areas USFWS 2011
Desert Wildlife Management Areas BLM California State Office 2014
Designated critical habitat for ESA-listed species USFWS 1967–2015
Designated special status species management areas BLM Arizona State Office 2012
BLM Oregon/Washington State Office 2014
DRECP Wildlife Allocations BLM California State Office 2016
Important Bird Areas National Audubon Society 2015
Raptor habitat/distribution
Aplomado falcon distribution USGS 2015
Bald eagle distribution USGS 2015
California condor critical habitat USFWS 2015
California condor distribution USGS 2015
Golden eagle distribution USGS 2015
Mexican spotted owl critical habitat USFWS 2015
Mexican spotted owl distribution USGS 2015
Northern spotted owl critical habitat USFWS 2015
Northern spotted owl distribution USGS 2015
Sage-grouse (includes greater and Gunnison)
GHMA BLM Washington Office 2016
PHMA BLM Washington Office 2016
SFA BLM Washington Office 2016
Sharp-tailed grouse habitat BLM Wyoming State Office 2004
Wildlife Management Areas, except in California BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
B-6
TABLE B-1 (Cont.)
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Potentially Incompatible Land Uses
Designated BLM utility corridors BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM Montana State Office Unknown
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
Various sources compiled at Argonne National Laboratory 2008
DoD-designated areas of high risk of adverse impact DoD 2011, 2013
DoD restricted airspace and military training routes Mantech, Inc. (DoD contractor) 2009
DRECP DFAs restricted to solar and/or geothermal energy BLM California State Office 2016
DRECP Variance Lands BLM California State Office 2016
Lands acquired with federal funds for conservation purposes BLM California State Office 2014
Lands purchased by private funds and donated to the BLM BLM California State Office Unknown
No surface occupancy restriction areas BLM Colorado State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2014
BLM Montana State Office Unknown
NPS-identified high potential conflict areas NPS 2012
RMP Wind Avoidance Areas BLM Arizona State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
RMP Wind Exclusion Areas BLM Arizona State Office 2012
BLM California State Office 2010
BLM Montana State Office 2014
BLM New Mexico State Office 2014
BLM Wyoming State Office 2014
B-7
TABLE B-1 (Cont.)
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Potentially Incompatible Land Uses (cont.)
ROW Avoidance Areas BLM Montana State Office Unknown
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
ROW Exclusion Areas BLM Idaho State Office 2014
BLM Montana State Office 2009, 2014
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
BLM New Mexico State Office 2009
BLM Oregon/Washington State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
BLM Washington Office 2013
Utah Test and Training Range BLM Utah State Office 2010
Visual Resources
BLM Back-Country Byways BLM Idaho State Office 2014
BLM Montana State Office Unknown
DRECP National Scenic Cooperative Management Areas BLM California State Office 2016
National Scenic Highways/All-American Roads BLM Idaho State Office 2010
National Scenic Trails BLM California State Office 2009
BLM Montana State Office 2014
BLM Washington Office 2009
National Scenic and Historic Trails BLM Colorado State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2012
BLM Nevada State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office Unknown
Various sources compiled at Argonne National Laboratory 2014
State Scenic Highways BLM Idaho State Office 2010
Federal Highway Administration 2013
B-8
TABLE B-1 (Cont.)
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Visual Resources (cont.)
VRM Class I BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM Idaho State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office 2008, 2014
BLM Oregon/Washington State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
VRM Class II BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM California State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office 2008, 2014
VRM Class III BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM California State Office 2012
BLM Montana State Office 2008, 2014
Cultural Resources
National Historic Landmarks National Park Service 2014
National Historic Parks and National Historic Sites BLM Washington Office 2009
National Historic Trails BLM California State Office 2003, 2004
BLM Montana State Office 2014
BLM Washington Office 2009
Properties listed on the NRHP or comparable state register NPS National Register Information System 2013
Recreation Resources
Long-term visitor use areas BLM Arizona State Office 2014
Off-highway vehicle areas
DRECP Open Off Highway Vehicle Areas BLM California State Office 2016
Off-highway vehicle open areas, except in DRECP BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM California State Office 2012
BLM Idaho State Office 2013
BLM Montana State Office Unknown
B-9
TABLE B-1 (Cont.)
Resource Type/Feature Class Name Source Source Date
Recreation Resources (cont.)
BLM Oregon/Washington State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
Recreation management areas
DRECP Extensive Recreation Management Areas BLM California State Office 2016
DRECP SRMAs BLM California State Office 2016
SRMAs, except in California BLM Arizona State Office 2014
BLM Colorado State Office 2013
BLM Idaho State Office 2013
BLM Montana State Office 2010, 2014
BLM New Mexico State Office Unknown
BLM Oregon/Washington State Office 2014
BLM Utah State Office 2014
SRMAs in California, not in the DRECP BLM California State Office 2013
Reference
BLM Field Office boundaries BLM Washington Office 2011
NPS boundaries NPS Unknown
Roads National Transportation Atlas Data 2011
Surface Management Agency BLM National Operations Center 2009
Wind Speed AWS Truepower, LLC 2014
a Abbreviations: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CDCA = California Desert Conservation Area; DoD = U.S. Department of Defense;
DRECP = Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan; DFA = Development Focus Area; ESA = Endangered Species Act; GHMA = General
Habitat Management Area; NLCS = National Landscape Conservation System; NPS = National Park Service; NRHP = National Register of
Historic Places; PHMA = Priority Habitat Management Area; RMP = Resource Management Plan; ROW = right-of-way; SFA = Sagebrush Focal
Area; SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; VRM =
Visual Resource Management.
B-10
This page intentionally left blank.
C-1
APPENDIX C:
PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY DOCUMENT
C-2
This page intentionally left blank.
C-3
APPENDIX C:
PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY DOCUMENT
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM
SEPTEMBER 2014 PUBLIC MEETING
On September 16, 2014, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) hosted a stakeholder outreach meeting to present information on the West-
Wide Wind Mapping Project (Project) and to solicit feedback. There were 44 attendees. The
information presented at this meeting was made available to the general public for comment and
review. Comment documents were received from seven stakeholder groups:
• American Wind Energy Association;
• Clark County, Nevada, Department of Aviation;
• Southern Nevada Water Authority;
• South-West Department of Defense Regional Coordination Team;
• The Nature Conservancy;
• The Wilderness Society on behalf of itself and 15 other nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs); and
• World Wildlife Fund.
Most commenters supported the idea of renewable energy development on public land
and made additional comments and recommendations regarding the Project that can be organized
into eight main topics: (1) comments on the Project purpose and objective, (2) comments on
potential exclusions, (3) consideration of additional resource sensitivities and/or exclusion
categories, (4) mapping suggestions, (5) use of appropriate data sources, (6) siting, (7) public
involvement, and (8) Project implementation and maintenance.2 A summary of these comments
is provided below.
2 During the public meeting, the BLM referred to wind energy exclusions and constraints presented by various
resources and land uses. Many of the stakeholders found the term “constraints” to be unclear and potentially
misleading with respect to actual limitations they might constitute. Subsequent to the meeting, the BLM dropped
the term “constraints” and instead referred to “other sensitive resources.” Meeting materials posted for public
review were modified to use the new terminology. As a result, both terms, “constraints” and “other sensitive
resources,” appear in the stakeholder comments.
C-4
PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
• The purpose and value of the Project are unclear. The BLM needs to further
explain the purpose of the Project and how the maps will be utilized.
• Maps developed under the Project should not be used to determine where
development may or may not occur and should only be used for informational
purposes.
• Wind development should be allowed to proceed through the use of risk-based
and site-specific approaches rather than through creating development/no-
development zones.
• The Project should be closely coordinated with the Wyoming Wind and
Transmission Study (WWATS), and both should be a priority.
POTENTIAL EXCLUSIONS
• It is unclear how and why the potential exclusion and constraints categories
were chosen. The BLM should clarify which exclusions and constraints will
be included in the Project and provide a rationale for why these areas should
be excluded or are considered sensitive to wind development.
• With regard to the Preliminary Exclusions and Other Resource Sensitivities
Related to Wind Energy on BLM-Administered Lands Table:
Lands Purchased by Private Funds and Donated to BLM should be considered an
exclusion, not just a BLM Designation and Other Sensitive Resource.
It is not clear why No Surface Occupancy Restriction Areas, Resource
Management Plan (RMP) Wind Avoidance Areas, and Right-of-Way (ROW)
Avoidance Areas are not considered areas of exclusion.
• Commenters suggested that the BLM consider adding the following categories
as exclusions:
Airport-Related Lands—specifically lands that are so close to an existing
or proposed airport that construction of tall structures could create hazards
to air navigation.
All designated Critical Habitat for threatened and endangered species.
All Priority Areas for Conservation and all areas identified as core or
priority habitat (or similar designation) for greater sage-grouse.
C-5
Habitat for raptors and Key Raptor Areas.
Inventoried and non-inventoried roadless areas that could qualify as
wilderness.
Lands Acquired or Designated via Compensatory Mitigation.
High-use areas for bat species.
ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE RESOURCE CATEGORIES
• Commenters suggested that the BLM consider adding the following categories
as land sensitivities:
General sage-grouse areas.
The Nature Conservancy’s biodiversity portfolio.
Lands more than 15 mi away from existing high-voltage transmission
lines.
• Commenters suggested that if the following categories were not considered as
exclusions that they at least be considered as sensitive resources:
Habitat for raptors and Key Raptor Areas (if not considered as an
exclusion) or sensitive areas incorporated into the model.
Inventoried and non-inventoried roadless areas that could qualify as
wilderness; at a minimum, these should be considered as sensitive areas.
MAPPING SUGGESTIONS
• The Project should identify areas excluded from wind development and areas
with low, moderate, and high levels of sensitivity to inform future land use
planning, conservation, and energy development.
• The Project should include proposed high-voltage transmission lines.
APPROPRIATE DATA SOURCES
Most commenters suggested that the BLM should use the best available data to develop
the Project. All of the commenters suggested a variety of sources, including papers, guides,
C-6
websites, and landscape-level planning tools already available for use, to be used in the
development of the Project.
• The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) would like to have a discussion
regarding adding data layers to the Project that would better articulate DoD
interests.
• The BLM should coordinate with other agencies and other landscape-level
planning efforts to ensure that the public has access to consistent and
transparent data.
• The BLM should avoid the creation of redundant planning tools. A variety of
landscape-level planning tools and geospatial databases are available to help
developers implement wind energy at a landscape-level basis. These include
the following:
American Wind Wildlife Institute’s (AWWI) Landscape Assessment Tool
(LAT)
Argonne National Laboratory’s (Argonne’s) Eastern Interconnection
States’ Planning Council (EISPC) Energy Zones Mapping Tool
The Audubon Society’s Important Bird Areas
BLM’s Rapid Ecological Assessments
DoD’s Preliminary Screening Tool
DoD’s Siting Clearinghouse
National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) Regional Energy
Deployment System (ReED Model)
NREL’s Wind Prospector
New York State Energy Research and Development Administration’s
(NYSERDA’s) Wind Energy Siting and Biodiversity Tool
Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s (RMBO’s) Rocky Mountain Avian
Data Center
RMBO’s Partners in Flight Database
State of Montana’s Crucial Areas Assessment Tool
The Nature Conservancy’s Low Impact Wind Planning Tool
C-7
The Western Governors’ Association’s Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool
(CHAT)
The Wilderness Society’s (TWS’s) Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal Areas
TWS’s Citizen-Inventoried Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Western Electricity Coordinating Council’s (WECC’s) Environmental
Data Task Force’s Geospatial Data Viewer
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) Land-Based Wind Energy
Guidelines (WEGs)
USFWS’s Landscape Energy Action Plan (LEAP)
USFWS’s Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC)
SITING
• Renewable energy development should be steered toward already disturbed
lands and/or lands where there will be the least conflict with resources of
concern.
• The BLM should consider transmission needs when considering areas suitable
for wind development.
• Existing and pending rights-of-way (ROWs) throughout portions of the
Project area. The following information should be clarified in any further
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents:
Existing ROWs would not be affected by the designation of wind energy
project developable and undevelopable lands.
If a wind energy project is developed within the vicinity of the ROW, the
project will not block the existing ROW.
The designation of wind energy developable and undevelopable lands
would not prevent the issuance of non-wind-energy project ROWs within
these lands.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
• The BLM should continue to provide meaningful opportunities for public
involvement in the Project.
C-8
• The BLM should create a Project website.
• The BLM should create a Project e-newsletter.
• The BLM should publish a Request for Information in the Federal Register.
• The BLM should host additional public meetings and/or webinars.
• The BLM should provide a follow-up opportunity to demonstrate the Project.
• Preliminary draft Project shapefiles and associated metadata should be made
available to the public via the public website.
• The BLM should coordinate closely with grazing permittees when designating
wind energy developable and undevelopable lands.
IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT
• The BLM should commit to using the Project to inform future land use
planning decisions.
• The BLM should commit to providing regular training for staff members on
the use of Project resources.
Recommended